Col.36... oh my! The entire right half is gone!
Col.37 is *slightly* better...
Posts by Don
Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
-
-
Great Discussion! Allow me to throw in these quotes as well:
Philódēmos, On Piety, 1.36.1023 – 1.37.1054: [Obbink] And for the production of benefits from the gods for good people and harms for bad people, they [the kathēgemónes] allow. And for the wise and just it must be conceived that benefits and harms which are no feebler or even greater than people in general suppose are made complete, not out of weakness or because we have need of anything from God, even in return [of] his benefit [here], and these things [the kathēgemónes] say most piously. And in On Gods what kind of source of retribution and preservation for humans through the deity must be accepted he outlines in some detail. And in book 13 he speaks concerning the affinity or alienation which God has for some people.
And of course we all remember SV65 "it is pointless begging from the gods for what one is sufficiently able to obtain for himself."
I will say I'd be interested in seeing how much of that is extant and how much is Obbink's reconstruction.
-
I would offer this additional (imperfect) metaphor on φευγω:
Consider that a person is trying to *flee* a burning building. They're trying to carry their full garbage bags, old clothes, half-used toothpaste tubes, etc. They feel this necessary for whatever reason. If they got rid of those, they would have a much better chance of escaping the burning building and getting out into the fresh air and being able to continue living.
Those bags of garbage, etc., are the fears of the gods, anxieties about death, and other disturbances of the mind that hold us back from truly enjoying our existence.
Like I said, "imperfect" but posting for thoughts and improvements.
-
So the general thrust is words like 'shared in festivals' and 'participated in worship' - and nothing specific about praying in terms of asking for things and expecting a reply (?)
That would be my general understanding. We know his asking for favors from the gods would have been completely against his understanding of the gods. However, the details of his participation in the rites, ceremonies, and worship are intriguing.
-
Twentier could you clarify your thoughts about what you think the ancient Epicurean toward prayer was?
I'll jump in here. Philodemus's On Piety is probably the most detailed account we have left of Epicurus's attitude to worship writ large. For example:
-
The planets are stars in this analysis--they are the "wandering stars" spoken of in the Letter to Pythocles;
Exactly. The ancient Greeks saw those as literally "wandering stars." They didn't think of them as "worlds" or "planets" like we conceive of a planet as another body circling a star. They're not a kosmos. They're simply ἄστρων πλανᾶσθαι, astron planasthai, stars who for some reason wander across the άστρα that are fixed in place in the night sky.
-
I said I was going to respond to some of Eikadistes 's thoughts on prayer.
Let me say from the outset that I don't pray. I don't intend to pray, but I could see some use for it in the following ways... even without believing in god or God or gods.
It comes down to how one define's "prayer." If it is asking god/God for favors or bargaining with the deity ("Dear Lord, help me pass this test and I'll start going to Wednesday services.")... yeah, that's devoid of utility and basically empty.
However, to me, prayer can also be something like the meal-time "grace" that was used in the Buddhist Plum Village Center where the first line goes "‘We are thankful for this food, The work of many people and the sharing of other forms of life." It is a mind-shift to an attitude of gratitude. That kind of grateful-attitude form of prayer is in keeping with Epicurean tradition, from my perspective.
There's also contemplative prayer, concentrating or studying a specific text or phrase, sitting with it to really dig into it. POSSIBLY an Epicurean form of this is to contemplate what it means to be a "blessed and incorruptible being" and how that can be manifested in this mortal body and a materialistic world. This could also be an attitude-adjustment in that keeping in mind how a "blessed and incorruptible being" might move in the world and trying to emulate - to the best of one's mortal abilities - that behavior to be more "like a god."
These are off the top of my head. I also said above that "I don't intend to pray" but looking at what I've typed... who knows. Maybe I'll try one of those forms of "prayer" in the future after all.
-
This isn't likely to be satisfactory, but I am tempted to suggest that we might sort of parallel the view that DeWitt suggested - that "life" rather than "pleasure" was Epicurus' greatest good. We might observe that from an Epicurean perspective the meaning of "pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain" comes down to a proper perspective on the verb "to live!"
Nope, nope, nope. (Another broken record of mine!)
Life *cannot* be the greatest good in the philosophical sense. Sure, life is good compared to the alternative, of course. But the "greatest good" is "that to which everything else points." The greatest good "in the opinion of all philosophers must needs be such that we are bound to test all things by it, but the standard itself by nothing." DeWitt's argument, as I remember, hinges on Latin not having a definite article
That said, I generally agree with your "pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain" comes down to a proper perspective on the verb "to live!" That "proper perspective" includes (but is not exclusive to) removing those fears, anxieties, empty beliefs, etc., that stand in the way of experience life as pleasurable.
-
Is there a single verb or noun synonymous with "pursuit of pleasure" either in English, Latin or (Ancient) Greek? Is there such a single verb or noun for "avoidance and prevention of pain"?
I'd go back to αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo). αἵρεσις can mean the taking of a town in a battle; choice or election of magistrates. Liddell & Scott write that its opposite is some senses is κλῆρος (kleros) which is the casting of lots. So it's the difference between making an informed choice (αἵρεσις) or making a decision by flipping a coin (κλῆρος). φεύγω can be thought of as people fleeing that town that's being taken in a battle; they're escaping from their fate; they have agency in fleeing the situation. The opposite of that word is διώκω (dioko) which is defined as pursue, chase, in war or hunting; pursue an object, seek after; or even drive or chase away.
Both αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo), to me, convey agency in whatever direction one heads. It is not a passive activity, but one taken with vigor and purpose.
-
Another aspect is investigating modern psychology and neuroscience in specific situations. When you mention the word "play" that reminds me about something Don posted (an article or podcast) about including more play in one's life. (I'm not sure where that is located).
Was it The Fun Habit: How the Pursuit of Joy and Wonder Can Change Your Life by Michael Rucker?
-
We need more input from others....
Okay, I'll take the bait...
To move-from pleasure, move-to pain or stay-in pain are not things I should do; let's ignore them in this post.
I wouldn't ignore those as options. We can choose to undergo pain IF it will lead to future greater pleasure. So, move-to pain is an option, and even stay-in (for a defined amount of time) are options; which, by definition mean one is in a move-from pleasure motion by choice to gain greater pleasure.
To stay-in pleasure. This experience doesn't tend to last long, and it is an absence-of-direction. This means: I can desire it and pursue it, but I cannot do it, because not-doing cannot be done.
I'm not sure I agree with this formulation. From my perspective, a goal of Epicurean philosophy is to be able to experience pleasure for as long as possible. If one's life and attitude are structured to experience the joy of existence, "feeling no pain", that seems a desirable state. Various activities can be undertaken and experienced, but the through-line is being able to experience a pleasurable state in as many activities as possible if one feels no pain.
Moving-from pain. I have begun to call this action "to avoid", to call the process "avoidance" and the behaviour "avoiding".
For anyone whose been around here a while, I apologize for jumping on my habitual soapbox/broken record. Personally, I dislike the "avoid/avoidance/avoiding" translation used in the stock phrases "choice and avoidance." The Greek words Epicurus uses are αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo) which literally mean "taking/choice" and "flee/take flight/escape" (avoid is also a definition, but down the list). αἵρεσις (hairesis) evolved later into the word heresy as in "someone making a choice... oops! wrong choice, we're going to have to punish you!" φεύγω (pheugo) as "flee/escape" always struck me as more immediate, more urgent, than "avoiding" which always reminds me of "avoiding a mud puddle." I realize that's a tangent, but one I can't "avoid" when it comes up.
using special words (to play/to avoid) to encapsulate the same meaning in a single, direct linguistic entity made it much easier to shift myself. It seems quite useful to me to categorise my behaviours into avoidance and play, to think of everything I do as either avoiding or playing.
Hmm... I *think* I can see where you're going, but moving toward pleasure isn't always "play" unless you're redefining "play." I'm all for play, btw, just to be clear! But moving toward pleasure sometimes means getting rid of fears, superstitions, anxieties, etc. Yes, that's moving away from pain, or jettisoning pain-producing fears, etc. You can certainly assign words to those movements you've described, but I'm not sure playing and avoiding are expansive enough to encompass what can be involved in those "motions."
Since this post is getting long, I'll stop here and start anew...
-
My first thought is that "worlds" appears to refer to a "collection" of lots of objects like planets and stars (presumably) then I would take "world" to be the "collection" of things, and not indicative that it would be impossible for planets or even starts to exist "on their own" part from a "world-system."
Hmm... Can we first agree that a "world" - in the Epicurean sense - refers to the word κοσμος (kosmos)? That seems to be the usual referent of the English translation "world" in the texts. If so, yes, I would fully agree that it is a "collection" of objects; however, those objects are in an "ordered" arrangement with a planet, stars and wandering stars (what we call "planets"), etc., all enclosed in an ordered pocket of the universe (The All). They all work together in the world-system. I don't see anywhere in the texts that talk about a "planet" forming outside of a kosmos.
A scholion to the letter to Herodotus does talk about different shaped "worlds":
Quote[74] "And further, we must not suppose that the worlds (κόσμους kosmous) have necessarily one and the same shape. [On the contrary, in the twelfth book "On Nature" he himself says that the shapes of the worlds differ, some being spherical, some oval, others again of shapes different from these. They do not, however, admit of every shape. Nor are they living beings which have been separated from the infinite (ἀπείρου apeirou).]
So the shapes of the kosmoi/worlds can differ; they're not all spherical.. but they are all kosmoi.
He also talks about the infinity of worlds in 45:
Quote"Moreover, there is an infinite number of worlds (κόσμοι kosmoi), some like this world, others unlike it. For the atoms being infinite in number, as has just been proved, are borne ever further in their course. For the atoms out of which a world (κόσμος kosmos) might arise, or by which a world might be formed, have not all been expended on one world or a finite number of worlds, whether like or unlike this one. Hence there will be nothing to hinder an infinity of worlds (τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων ten apeirian ton kosmon).
There is no such thing as a star or planet outside of a kosmos/world-system. 88-91 are directly relevant to the current conversation:
Quote"A world (Κόσμος kosmos) is a circumscribed portion of the universe, which contains stars and earth and all other visible things, cut off from the infinite, and terminating [and terminating in a boundary which may be either thick or thin, a boundary whose dissolution will bring about the wreck of all within it] in an exterior which may either revolve or be at rest, and be round or triangular or of any other shape whatever. All these alternatives are possible : they are contradicted by none of the facts in this world, in which an extremity can nowhere be discerned.
[89] "That there is an infinite number of such worlds (κόσμοι kosmoi) can be perceived, and that such a world (κόσμος kosmos) may arise in a world (κόσμῳ kosmoi) or in one of the intermundia (μετακοσμίῳ metakosmioi) (by which term we mean the spaces between worlds (κόσμων kosmon)) in a tolerably empty space and not, as some maintain, in a vast space perfectly clear and void. It arises when certain suitable seeds rush in from a single world or intermundium, or from several, and undergo gradual additions or articulations or changes of place, it may be, and waterings from appropriate sources, until they are matured and firmly settled in so far as the foundations laid can receive them. [90] For it is not enough that there should be an aggregation or a vortex in the empty space in which a world may arise, as the necessitarians hold, and may grow until it collide with another, as one of the so-called physicists says. For this is in conflict with facts.
[91] "The sun and moon and the stars generally were not of independent origin and later absorbed within our world, [such parts of it at least as serve at all for its defence] ; but they at once began to take form and grow [and so too did earth and sea] by the accretions and whirling motions of certain substances of finest texture, of the nature either of wind or fire, or of both ; for thus sense itself suggests.
So, the sun, moon, and stars (NOTE: No mention of "planet" other than the one on which the beings - human beings in this case - stand) arise as a whole system. The kosmos works as a whole, arises as a whole. It can form within another world or in the intermundia, but the kosmos coalesces and bodies form within the kosmos. There are no suns, moons, or stars independent of a kosmos in which to form.
-
I don't think it's necessarily the only conclusion to draw
I am certainly open to hearing other conclusions.
Talk me down. -
On this topic, I keep coming back to the assertion in Cicero (Is it elsewhere?) that the gods live in the between-cosmos area of the universe. By definition, that means there is no world, no world-system, no ordered part of the universe on which a human-shaped god could reside. By definition, the intermundia/metakosmos has no "world." Are we to imagine them floating around like bubbles? They literally would not have a spot to stand or sit in this area of the universe. That's why I have a hard time accepting that Epicurus believed gods were existent beings somehow residing "between world-systems." Quick lunch time rant for now.
I'll hopefully have a chance to address some of Eikadistes's very valid concerns from my perspective this evening.
-
*But* we don't have prolepseis of the good and pleasure. One is a philosophical concept, the other is a direct connection to reality. Epicurus did posit prolepseis of the god and justice.
-
Some good points you raise. Heading out the door to work, but I wanted to get this down...
I think the "existence" of something doesn't necessarily mean its being able to be touched or seen. Epicurus clearly says the gods are only perceptible by the mind... at least to us mortals.
There is also the issue of Epicurus's saying that we have a prolepsis of justice. Just can't be seen or touched but "we know it when we see it" due to a prolepsis. Of course, for my part, we have the same issue with that in that if justice is, at its root, to neither be intentionally harmed nor to intentionally harm others, that also has a load of semantic and conceptual content for something (the prolepsis) that I think we believe is a pre-rational faculty.
Throwing it out there for discussion.
-
This episode made me go back and examine the relevant sections of the letter to Menoikeus... And I found myself asking "What *really* is the prolepsis of the gods that Epicurus is proposing?" I thought it's straight forward: A god is a blessed and imperishable 'being'. But I'm not so sure. Let me break down the text and show where I'm coming from:
First, on the one hand, believing that the god is a blessed and imperishable thing as is the common, general understanding of the god... πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων,...
First = not numerically, but "primarily, foremost, most importantly."
believe = νομίζων "believing, holding, considering" (present active participle of νομῐ́ζω) To me "believing" involves a cognitive act of choosing to believe, hold, or acknowledge something. You can choose to believe the earth is flat. However, once you have evidence available, you can become convinced to believe the earth is round. Believe that the god is blessed and imperishable has too much semantic and conceptual content to be the prolepsis, which I believe most of us take to be a pre-rational, pre-conceptual impression (like sensations).
Even ζῷον (as I've mentioned before) can be a "living being/animal" but also an "image" of a living being as in the painting of a horse. Could Epicurus be hedging his bets here? Is the god only apprehended by the mind and contemplation because it is really is an image constructed by the mind, like the painting on a cloth or wall, in the mind itself of the one who turns their thoughts toward the god?
...as the common understanding (mental perception, idea, concept) of the god has been outlined...ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη,
The use of ὑπεγράφη (hypegraphe) is especially interesting in this context because this word literally means to be outlined with the intent of someone filling in the details, like the image of letters indicated by a teacher by an outline or tracing for the student to then follow. It seems according to this, the most basic characteristics of the god are merely outlines in our mind on top of which all the incorrect assumptions and concepts of the hoi polloi are piled on. But those characteristics of blessedness and imperishability seem far too "detailed" to be considered ὑπεγράφη (hypegraphe).
Then we have:
Do not attribute anything foreign to the incorruptibility or incongruous with the blessedness of itself (i.e., the god)! μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε.Believe everything about which a god is able to preserve its own imperishability and blessedness for itself. πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετα ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτον δόξαζε.
In this case, "believe" is actually δόξαζε (doxaze) "think, suppose, imagine, hold the opinion that" This word is connected with δοξαι in Principle Doctrines κυριαι δοξαι (kyriai doxai)
So, Epicurus exhorts his students to believe the god is a blessed and imperishable being (or the image of a being in their mind), to hold the believe that the god is able to preserve its own blessedness and imperishability, because the common idea of the god is engraved somehow in our minds by the faintest outline.
I still find it hard to believe that the prolepsis of the gods includes all that, somehow including all that conceptual framework.
This line of thought is one reason I continue to be intrigued by the "idealist" position of the Epicurean gods. The god's blessedness and incorruptibility is maintained by our very focus on their blessedness and incorruptibility in our minds. As we approach a temple or image, that image of blessedness and incorruptibility allows the Epicurean to interact with a divine image as the physical representation of that image in the mind of a blessed and incorruptible being - and ONLY as that - without all the baggage of imagining a vengeful, wrathful god.
Still very much a work-in-progress but that a direction of inquiry I'm heading down.
-
Excellent, thought-provoking episode! Thank you all.
-
Epicurus' redefinition of pleasure was rather only a reinstatement of its pure form, before all the manipulations of culture came to taint it; the way toddlers and piglets still perceive it.
I admit I haven't thought of it in that way before, but I like it. -
The longest treatise on language by Epicurus left to us is Book 28 of On Nature:
Sedley's translation is the best source to dig into that work.
Unread Threads
-
- Title
- Replies
- Last Reply
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 6.6k
-
July 8, 2025 at 7:33 AM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 308
-
July 6, 2025 at 9:47 PM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 889
-
July 1, 2025 at 1:59 PM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 858
-
June 23, 2025 at 12:36 AM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2k
-